Google Cloud SQL is a database-as-a-service (DBaaS) with the capability and functionality of MySQL.
$0
per core hour
Oracle Database
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
Oracle Database, currently in edition 23ai, is a converged, multimodel database management system. It is designed to simplify development for AI, microservices, graph, document, spatial, and relational applications.
$0.05
per hour
Pricing
Google Cloud SQL
Oracle Database
Editions & Modules
License - Express
$0
per core hour
License - Web
$0.01134
per core hour
Storage - for backups
$.08
per month per GB
HA Storage - for backups
$.08
per month per GB
Storage - HDD storage capacity
$.09
per month per GB
License - Standard
$0.13
per core hour
Storage - SSD storage capacity
$.17
per month per GB
HA Storage - HDD storage capacity
$.18
per month per GB
HA Storage - SSD storage capacity
$.34
per month per GB
License - Enterprise
$0.47
per core hour
Memory
$5.11
per month per GB
HA Memory
$10.22
per month per GB
vCPUs
$30.15
per month per vCPU
HA vCPUs
$60.30
per month per vCPU
Oracle Base Database Service - Standard
$0.0538
per hour
Oracle Base Database Service - Enterprise
$0.1075
per hour
Oracle Base Database Service - High Performance
$0.2218
per hour
Standard Edition
Contact Sales
Enterprise Edition
Contact Sales
Personal Edition
Contact Sales
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Google Cloud SQL
Oracle Database
Free Trial
Yes
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
Pricing varies with editions, engine, and settings, including how much storage, memory, and CPU you provision. Cloud SQL offers per-second billing.
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Google Cloud SQL
Oracle Database
Considered Both Products
Google Cloud SQL
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Google Cloud SQL
Google Cloud SQL ended up being less expensive, have a greater support team and offer a much better interface
I 100% prefer Google Cloud SQL over Amazon Aurora in terms of ease of use and clarity in terms of understanding how the autoscaling is going to work. Connecting to the database directly is also much more straightforward.
Setting up or migrating Google Cloud SQL is easy as compared to AWS. It has a good monitoring and logging mechanism and a good user interface which makes it easy to navigate.It also has a pay as you go pricing which makes it easier to reduce cost. Google Cloud SQL offers …
Actually Google Cloud SQL is similar to them, the difference is which engine each supports e.g. there's no managed Oracle DB in Google Cloud SQL but as long as you don't need Oracle, Google Cloud SQL should suffice and give you great user experience and performance. You also …
Google SQL was great as a first SQL provision. It quickly enabled the apps to be built and scaled as needed for a while. It was robust and adaptable as needed and easy to export as needed when ready, depending on growth. Cost-wise, it's a good choice and requires little …
Unlike other products, Google Cloud SQL has very flexible features that allow it to be selected for a free trial account so that the product can be analyzed and tested before purchasing it. Integration capabilities with most of the web services tools are easier regarding Google …
When comparing cost, Google Cloud SQL typically offers a more straightforward and versatile plan than Azure SQL Database. Cloud SQL for PostgreSQL is a serverless solution provided by Google Cloud SQL that automatically modifies resources according to workload. For customers …
- AWS RDS and Aurora is a just a notch above Google Cloud SQL as it provide boost in performance when required - Google Cloud SQL Mysql Engine is Cloud based and better than native Mysql as it provides management of the server out of box - Compared to a MongoDB it has a low …
At first, we choose Google Cloud SQL only for demo purposes. It is so easy to set up and It is fully managed. we have worked with Azure SQL as well but Google SQL is more simple to use and It fully secure, reliable, provides high availability, and very Low Latency.
Easier learning, simple features and settings with a very user-friendly application environment and flexible prices make Google Cloud [SQL] a pioneering option over competitors
Google Cloud SQL is just as good as the other guys. We were already invested in GCP, which made the choice very easy. We did not want to start fresh in AWS or Azure. We used our existing GCP setup and just added Cloud SQL. It's unfortunate that companies continue to send people …
There are many options for cloud-hosted dedicated SQL instances. In many ways, simply moving from software and server-based database to a dedicated cloud database is just generally good. All hosts provide some sort of scaling and backup, and all separate the server management …
Google Cloud SQL is very similar to other cloud provider options. AWS and DigitalOcean are direct competitors, While Azure is focusing on their own products. At cloud provider level, it's a matter of choosing the provider, and this product will not play a significant role on …
The Google Cloud SQL offering fits into our development stack and was a clean replacement for our MySQL database. If we had been using SQL Server instead, then the offering from Azure would have made more sense. I have used both in the past and both work well, with GCP being …
It's dramatically faster than running MySQL on a VM, which is what we did before. Whatever Google has done to optimize Google Cloud SQL compared to standalone MySQL installations has worked.
I've used supabase and can say that Google Cloud SQL is a lot more hands off. They just run an instance for you and don't do much more than that. Which is exactly what we wanted. If you want something that is truly fully managed and abstracted then I guess that would be a …
I have selected Oracle database from other databases as this database is relational database which stored the data in structural and tabular format which is better than any other databases which I have used in my carrier. Also MongoDB is no SQL database where we can use SQL …
Oracle Database is best in business, consistent, and robust. Even the standard version is sufficient for the best performance. The main thing is I have never seen corruption and in my opinion, it is best when used with Linux.
In my opinion, Oracle Database is highly reliable, has better performance with large databases and little to no maintenance once everything is setup. Also, recovery of the Oracle database is much simpler and easier.
Microsoft SQL is just as stable and almost as sellable with a much lower cost of ownership (staff and licensing). But as our primary application doesn't support Microsoft SQL we had to license Oracle.
Oracle Machine Learning is completely different when compared to HCM or Hyperion. I can say that the data collected from HCM or hyperion enterprise can be used on Oracle Machine Learning to perform an analysis to predict the future business.
Oracle Database is among the easiest to integrate with, program against, have a reliable cluster with DR, and has the most understood and well-documented databases. It suits really well if the software shop is primarily Java-based, and deals with large volumes of data with a …
Azure databases is another cloud database that I had used in some .net platform based projects. Both of the cloud database services are identical in nature of usage but very different in scope of usage. But this doesn't mean that the Oracle Database Cloud Service stacks up …
Most are complements to enhance the benefits of the Oracle database. I selected and evaluated Oracle databases because it is the most used suite in the organization and it is important for me to mention strengths and points to improve.
Oracle is more of an enterprise-level database than Access and SAP Adaptive Server Enterprise isn't getting developed much (some people wonder how close it is to end of life) but SQL Server is miles ahead of Oracle IMO in terms of user experience and comparable in terms of …
We use IBM DB2 in AS400 to handle part of our accounting system and our legacy ERP. We are migrating all functionalities to Oracle Database 12c because it is more secure and stable. We have some applications using SQL Server but we want to handle those systems in it because at …
We initially looked at Dynamics but would have to had to add on a 3rd party provider that would have had to customize a solution and at the end dynamics licensing would have been more in the long run.
Both have good functionality. Oracle Database runs better on the Oracle engineered systems and provides a better cost model on those servers. Has better security and a more enterprise ready solution.
Oracle provides better support compared to both DynamoDB and Redshift. It is definitely a way matured product and handles the scale preferably. However, DynamoDB's replication is very impressive and their cost benefits are something oracle should consider and reduce their …
Oracle Database has a better reputation in quality of the database compared to Amazon Aurora, SAP, Microsoft and IBM DB2. There are also better developer ecosystems available that can be used for issues and hiring DBAs and developers with the experience on Oracle Database. …
Oracle Database 12c is head and shoulders above SQL Server for what we need it to do, and the performance is much better. Oracle Database has been in place at our company for a while, and it was really a no brainer going to Oracle Database version 12c instead of another …
Oracle is in the leader of the pack. It has excellent user community and support is superb. It is widely used by 75% of organizations from small, medium, large to enterprise wide organizations.
Does what it promises well, for instance, as a sidecar for the main enterprise data warehouse. However, I would not recommend using it as the main data warehouse, particularly due to the heavy business logic, as other dedicated tools are more suitable for ensuring scalable operations in terms of change management and multi-developer adjustments.
I believe Oracle Database is still the best RDBMS database which is the database to consider for OLTP applications and for Adhoc requests. They are good in Datawarehousing in certain aspects but not the best. Oracle is also a great database for scaling up with their Clusterware solution which also makes the database highly available with services moving to the live instance without much trouble.
New (actually it is more than five years old) multi-tenant architecture is not as straightforward as SQL Server, but it has been enhanced in Oracle 12c Release 2 and later 18c and 19c.
Many features require additional licensing (either as options or as packs) that increase the total cost
It is very likely to use this 12c (or next version) of Oracle Database. Nothing close to it in the marketplace in terms of performance, reliability and overall database management efficiency. If Oracle did one thing really good - it is it's OLTP Database I must say.
As with other cloud tools, users must learn a new terminology to navigate the various tools and configurations, and understand Google Cloud's configuration structure to perform even the most basic operations. So the learning curve is quite steep, but after a few months, it gets easier to maintain.
Many of the powerful options can be auto-configured but there are still many things to take into account at the moment of installing and configuring an Oracle Database, compared with SQL Server or other databases. At the same time, that extra complexity allows for detailed configuration and guarantees performance, scalability, availability and security.
GCP support in general requires a support agreement. For small organizations like us, this is not affordable or reasonable. It would help if Google had a support mechanism for smaller organizations. It was a steep learning curve for us because this was our first entry into the cloud database world. Better documentation also would have helped.
1. I have very good experience with Oracle Database support team. Oracle support team has pool of talented Oracle Analyst resources in different regions. To name a few regions - EMEA, Asia, USA(EST, MST, PST), Australia. Their support staffs are very supportive, well trained, and customer focused. Whenever I open Oracle Sev1 SR(service request), I always get prompt update on my case timely. 2. Oracle has zoom call and chat session option linked to Oracle SR. Whenever you are in Oracle portal - you can chat with the Oracle Analyst who is working on your case. You can request for Oracle zoom call thru which you can share the your problem server screen in no time. This is very nice as it saves lot of time and energy in case you have to follow up with oracle support for your case. 3.Oracle has excellent knowledge base in which all the customer databases critical problems and their solutions are well documented. It is very easy to follow without consulting to support team at first.
Overall the implementation went very well and after that everything came out as expected - in terms of performance and scalability. People should always install and upgrade a stable version for production with the latest patch set updates, test properly as much as possible, and should have a backup plan if anything unexpected happens
Unlike other products, Google Cloud SQL has very flexible features that allow it to be selected for a free trial account so that the product can be analyzed and tested before purchasing it. Integration capabilities with most of the web services tools are easier regarding Google Cloud SQL with its nature and support.
Oracle Database is among the easiest to integrate with, program against, have a reliable cluster with DR, and has the most understood and well-documented databases. It suits really well if the software shop is primarily Java-based, and deals with large volumes of data with a high degree of diversity among the applications by purpose and use. Paid support is recommended as well as planned periodic patching and upgrades.
We wasted lots of money (Oracle is crazy expensive), time and effort on the project and were highly relieved when we found a different approach to supporting our aging ERP app that did not include Oracle.
Because of the difficulty of using Oracle, we spent a lot of money on consultants to help us over the conversion hump. Also wasted. And it was interesting to see them struggle with the software. Upgrades never went well always requiring multiple site visits, for example.